Case: EEOC v. HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT CORP

2:01-cv-01531 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Filed Date: Sept. 27, 2001

Closed Date: April 15, 2004

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

The Seattle district office of the EEOC brought this suit against Hollywood Entertainment Corp., d/b/a Hollywood Video Stores in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in September 2001. While we do not have a copy of the complaint, it apparently alleged discrimination against female employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act. This suit was brought on behalf of a class of employees and was subsequently consolidated with a …

The Seattle district office of the EEOC brought this suit against Hollywood Entertainment Corp., d/b/a Hollywood Video Stores in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in September 2001. While we do not have a copy of the complaint, it apparently alleged discrimination against female employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act. This suit was brought on behalf of a class of employees and was subsequently consolidated with a suit alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. After a stay in the proceedings and an order of dismissal, the parties settled the case in April 2003 by entry of a consent decree.

The decree included non-discrimination and non-retaliation clauses, required the EEOC to review Hollywood Entertainment's anti-discrimination policy and make reasonable modifications to it, and required the posting and distribution of the policy. Hollywood Entertainment also agreed to continue to train all managers and employees in the area of employment discrimination. The defendant also agreed to provide reports to the EEOC regarding compliance with the decree. The injunctive parts of the decree had a one year term. If the EEOC found non-compliance, the decree required the EEOC to give notice and a chance to remedy, allowed for a non-court dispute resolution process, and allowed for court enforcement which could prompt an indefinite extension of the decree and the awarding of costs to the EEOC. In addition, Hollywood Entertainment agreed to pay $87,000 to the class members with allocation of the funds to be determined by the EEOC.

Summary Authors

Justin Kanter (6/9/2008)

Related Cases

EEOC v. HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT CORP (d/b/a HOLLYWOOD VIDEO STORES), Western District of Washington (2001)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:01-cv-01531

Docket (PACER)

EEOC v. Hollywood Entertainment Corp.

May 17, 2004

May 17, 2004

Docket
4

2:01-cv-01531

Related Case Order

EEOC v. Hollywood Entertainment Corp.

Oct. 24, 2001

Oct. 24, 2001

Order/Opinion
6

2:01-cv-01531

Order of Dismissal

EEOC v. Hollywood Entertainment Corp.

July 31, 2002

July 31, 2002

Order/Opinion

2:01-cv-01531

2:01-cv-00230

Consent Decree and Order

EEOC v. Hollywood Entertainment Corp.

April 15, 2003

April 15, 2003

Settlement Agreement

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 11, 2022, 3:05 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT - JURY TRIAL DEMAND (Summons(es) issued) Receipt # fee waived (USA) (PM) (Entered: 02/21/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

2

RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed upon defendant Hollywood Entertain on 2/15/01 (VK) (Entered: 02/26/2001)

Feb. 21, 2001

Feb. 21, 2001

3

RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed upon Rus Darrell Berry, c/o David Grimm, et al., on 2/15/01 (VK) (Entered: 02/26/2001)

Feb. 23, 2001

Feb. 23, 2001

4

ANSWER to complaint [1-1] by defendant (VK) (Entered: 03/06/2001)

March 2, 2001

March 2, 2001

5

Order Re Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement; conf ddl 4/26/01; initial disclosures by 5/3/01; combined JSR and discovery plan by 5/10/01 (cc: counsel, Judge) (VK) (Entered: 03/30/2001)

March 29, 2001

March 29, 2001

6

REPORT ON DISCOVERY PLAN filed by plaintiff, defendant (CL) (Entered: 04/03/2001)

March 29, 2001

March 29, 2001

7

INITIAL DISCLOSURES of the parties by defendant (VK) (Entered: 05/07/2001)

May 3, 2001

May 3, 2001

8

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Lasnik setting Trial Date and Related Dates pursuant to LR 16. Jury trial set for 3/4/02 ; Deadline to Join Additional Parties is 8/6/01 ; Disclosure of expert testimony due: 9/5/01 ; Discovery Motions to be filed by 10/5/01 ; Discovery deadline set for 11/4/01 ; Dispositive Motions to be filed by 12/4/01 ; Settlement conf. per CR 39.1(c)(2) by 1/3/02 ; 39.1 designation effective 2/2/02 ; Motions in Limine deadline 2/4/02 ; Agreed Pretrial Order set for 2/20/02 ; Trial briefs and exhibits to be submitted by 2/27/02 ; Voir dire/jury instructions 2/27/02 ; Jury trial set for 2-3 days. (cc: counsel, Judge, KL) (VK) (Entered: 07/10/2001)

July 10, 2001

July 10, 2001

LODGED ORDER: stipulation and proposed order re stay (VK) (Entered: 10/19/2001)

Oct. 18, 2001

Oct. 18, 2001

9

STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik case stayed for 120 days; all dates vacated (cc: counsel, Judge, KL) (VK) (Entered: 10/19/2001)

Oct. 19, 2001

Oct. 19, 2001

10

ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik re: status report re: stay (cc: counsel, Judge) (MD) (Entered: 02/22/2002)

Feb. 21, 2002

Feb. 21, 2002

11

REPORT from Mediator Judge Rosselle Pekelis, ret. regarding failure of mediation that occurred on 5/6/02 (AF) (Entered: 05/30/2002)

May 25, 2002

May 25, 2002

12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge Robert S. Lasnik : Counsel having notified the Court of settlement of this case, and it appearing that no issue remains for the Court's determination, IT IS ORDERED that this action and all claims asserted herein are DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs to any party. In the event that settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case within 60 days of the date of this order (cc: counsel, Judge, KL) (VK) (Entered: 07/31/2002)

July 31, 2002

July 31, 2002

13

NOTICE by defendant Hollywood Entertain of atty's change of address (VK) (Entered: 08/01/2002)

Aug. 1, 2002

Aug. 1, 2002

LODGED ORDER: consent decree and order (VK) (Entered: 04/15/2003)

April 14, 2003

April 14, 2003

14

CONSENT DECREE by Judge Robert S. Lasnik (cc: counsel, Judge) Entered on: 4/15/03 (VK) (Entered: 04/15/2003)

April 15, 2003

April 15, 2003

15

NOTICE OF EXPIRATION OF CONSENT DECREE AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE; ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS, ) (Entered: 05/18/2004)

May 17, 2004

May 17, 2004

Case Details

State / Territory: Washington

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 27, 2001

Closing Date: April 15, 2004

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Hollywood Entertainment Corp. (Seattle Metropolitan Area), Private Entity/Person

Hollywood Entertainment Corp. (Seattle Metropolitan Area), Private Entity/Person

Hollywood Entertainment Corp., Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.

Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 87000

Order Duration: 2003 - 2004

Content of Injunction:

Retaliation Prohibition

Discrimination Prohibition

Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law

Provide antidiscrimination training

Reporting

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination-area:

Pay / Benefits

Discrimination-basis:

Age discrimination

Sex discrimination

Affected Gender:

Female

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits